Viltrox warns some of its X-mount prime lenses can cause damage to X-Pro3 camera bodies

If something like that makes a camera look better in tests than in real life, it can also mean that the test does not measure the right thing or that its result are misinterpreted (it happens very often, just look at the number of people using PDR as a measure of low-light performance).

In fact, I tend to be wary of claims about ISO settings being “off” in the first place. It often comes from people looking at DxOMark’s “measured ISO” charts, and for cameras that use Standard Output Sensitivity, being “off” on those graphs generally just means that the exposure that the camera maps to middle grey is not 3 stops below saturation (2.5 stops between 18% grey and 100% white + half a stop of headroom). It has more (if SOS > “measured ISO”) or less (otherwise) than half a stop of headroom. It doesn’t necessarily imply that the SOS is wrong. (It might be, but that graph won’t tell you, since it measures something else.)

But there are several ways to compute ISO values, SOS being one of them (section 7 in ISO 12232:2019) and saturation another (actually not endorsed by CIPA, unlike SOS). That’s the point.

The “SensitivityType” EXIF tag should tell you what your camera uses. My Olympus and Pentax cameras have 1, which means SOS (the Pentax files even have a “StandardOutputSensitivity” tag equal to the “ISOSpeedRatings” one), while my Canon compact has 2, which means REI (Recommended Exposure Index).

See here for what each value means: https://exiftool.org/TagNames/EXIF.html

Actually, what DxOMark computes is technically not a proper ISO speed, since they compute it on RAW images, and the standard explicitly says that “ISO speed and ISO speed latitude values shall not be reported for raw images”.

Some Fuji primes are simply out of my price range, doesn't matter how stellar they are if I can't afford them :)

Fuji themselves used to very arrogantly say none of their users needed third-parties because (they claimed) their lens line-up already had every lens anyone could ever need and as good and as affordable as possible.
Then the Viltrox 85mm proved that was total nonsense.
Fujifilm are missing many common focal lengths, as well as nearly every kind of speciality lens, in their own line. No first-party fisheye, no tilt-shift, no real telephoto macro (yes, the 80mm is quite good, but it breathes so much that it's actually only about 60mm at 1:1), no 200mm equivalent, no 100mm equivalent, a pretty shoddy 28mm equivalent, no cheap beginner portrait lens, no cheap ultra-wide prime, only one rapidly aging compact zoom, no true f/2.8 equivalent zooms, nothing over 400mm (and their 100-400 is really about 380mm at the long end and of course no match for pro-grade 400mm+ lenses other systems have), etc
Third-parties are filling all those gaps and now even Fuji admit it's necessary and a good thing.

Because as reported by Christopher Frost, the viltrox 33mm is optically as good as the Fuji versión at a fraction of the price. ;)

To be fair, I haven't seen any tilt-shift lenses released for ANY mirrorless mount, as of yet. It's a shame, because they should be even easier to engineer.

Foskito because you were the one asking.... But whatever seems you are looking for a fight rather than a conversation.

Foskito: Competition is always a good thing, it drives innovation, makes prices more competitive, it pushes manufacturers to offer more to consumers, it is a win-win situation for fans of the brand. It is totally amazing that you can afford the prices of Fuji lenses, but some people can't (people who don't live in 1st world countries) and they rely on 3rd party manufacturers to get their gear.

Why don't you watch his reviews on both the fuji and viltrox lenses and draw your own conclusions? I think it is a bit disengenious and uninformed to diss without any information.

But I leave this discussion here, to me it seems you want to have a monologue instead of a dialogue.

Frank:

They changed a thing that didn’t need to be changed. Also interesting that the T4 doesn’t exhibit the same problem. This is a poor design change. If a thing is broken change it. If not, don’t.

@shigzeo. We don't know that it didn't needed to be changed. Maybe Fujifilm needed to this this in order to make everything fit inside, unless you know something we don't?

No, Viltrox is using a larger, full frame mount as the basis for the lenses.

https://3.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS1120x1120~forums/63935309/df864a974fe246b3bc44cc8959feb856

Its mot Fuji's responsibility to desgn their cameras for third party lens companies. Its the resonsibility of the third party lens comoanies to ensure their lenses fit properly.

All of that is true, but the newer design makes it harder for the human finger to reach the release button, which works against fuji users, who already had one of the hardest to reach release buttons. Why did they move or change it for the Pro 3? Was there a point or is this just another change for the sale of change? If it were further removed from the mount it would be easier to operate. It is not.

@Frankinidaho they arent responsible for 3rd party manufacturer. But they are responsible for adhering fo their very own mount specs.

It's in Fujifilm's best interest no not add more protruding elements around the mount so even 3rd party lenses will fit. After all the Fuji ecosystem is propelled from big part thanks to all the affordable non official lens choices. Be it Samyang, Kamlan, Viltrox, Laowa, or Zeiss: https://alikgriffin.com/a-complete-list-of-fujifilm-x-mount-lenses/

@Coomer. Fujifilm's mount specs has not changed. If it did, none of the older Fujinon lenses would fit. The only difference is the garnish around the lens release button.

@jnd. Fuji ecosystem is not propelled from third party lenses. The main complaint of their eco system is the lack of good third party support, which is why this Viltrox lens was highly anticipated.

@Coomer

"@Frankinidaho they arent responsible for 3rd party manufacturer. But they are responsible for adhering fo their very own mount specs."

Well, if every Fujifilm's lens as well as others (licensed ? Like Zeis) works great with every X cameras to date. Then, Viltrox did break the specs.. They likely made a mistake while reverse engineering..

If Fujifilm would have break its own specs, then their own lens would also be not compatible.

Viltrox's mistake is adapting a larger diameter, full frame mount. That's why it scrapes.

I did a live stream on this yesterday, and three other people (out of 8 total) complained about the same design issue, but on the Fujifilm, not Viltrox side. The button is already hard to reach and way too close to the mount. Even Fuji's own lenses are hard to take off because there is almost no separation between button and lens barrel.

Add gloves and my own metrosexual fingers can't reach the button with the 16-55 attached when wearing very thin gloves. With adapters, even the X-T3 requires me to bunch up fabric to remove the adapter, and with ice gloves I can't reliably remove the fuji lens from the fuji body.

I get that we fuji users have to protect our mount, but this lens release button IS bad design.

So bizarre that Fujifilm cant keep their own x-mount specification design consistent. Maybe the X-Pro is solely designed for their small primes like the 23/35/50 f/2 lenses. They really should include some sort of disclaimer that larger lenses have issues.

I have a feeling (discussed this yesterday with other fuji users) that the system was designed with the sole purpose of being small and fun for a bit but that fujifilm had no long term plans behind it. There are myriad inconsistencies in the early models and completely absent basic features (lack of max flash sync speed on the shutter speed dial for one) as well as problems that work through in the long term, the release button being too close to the mount, that are being felt long after.

I have long thought that the release button is too close to the mount, but until this thing never felt it was worth talking about because it just fit in with a lot of the quirks of the X system. It obviously is a short sighted design.

Out of 15+ Fuji cameras, only one has such problem.

There was similar story concerning Pentax K-1 and some Sigma lenses, which were a little to wide on the mount side and could scratch the prism housing a bit. Sigma issued a note and replaced mounts of their Pentax lenses free of charge, and also repaired the scratch marks on the camera if such appeared.

@NexUser: Well, so far every single Fujifilm's lenses and licensed lenses (Zeis) work great on every Fujifim's cameras. There is a very high chance the sepcs of the mount did not change... but that Viltrox made a mistake while reverse engineering it.

When a product is cheap, maybe "too" cheap, it means someone else paid for you. In this case, the X-Pro3 pays the price..

The current Fujifilm's lenses are really great nd well priced.. hard time for 3rd party manufacturer

Because it's rare that you even notice it. Had it not been for this, I wouldn't have even seen it. It's that minor.

Link doesn't work.

Probably because you have to be a member of the group. It's just a couple users saying what I said. They have the same issue and don't use Viltrox lenses.

I disagree Karroly. Viltrox is using a lens barrel designed for larger full frame mounts, which is why it rubs against it; you'll notice that no other lenses or lens adapters have this issue. While Viltrox can't be blamed for the 85's issue since that lens was released before the X-Pro3, they should have done a better job testing their other lenses on all Fuji cameras.

The upcoming 85mm mark 2 is supposed to be designed for APS-C sho is shouldn't have this issue.

Karroly - No need to be sorry, we're all just expressing opinions

I'm pretty sure that Fujifilm know precisely how much clearance is needed for their own lenses to avoid rubbing against X-Pro3 bodies, and they'll all be fine. They won't need to change lens barrel designs in any way.

Why should they be obliged to constrain their camera designs to match the measurements of pre-existing reverse-engineered lenses from competing brands?

entoman,
I am French and my use of English is not perfect. When I say "I am sorry", I am not actually sorry. This is just "une figure de style" to say I disagree.

"Why should they be obliged to constrain their camera designs to match the measurements of pre-existing reverse-engineered lenses from competing brands?"
I never said that, but I think that placing the button closer to the mount can makes it more tricky for users with big fingers... I do not think this is a wise choice ergonomically speaking...

Karroly - Your English is very good, I would never have guessed you weren't a native English-speaker. You put my French language skills to shame!

I'm inclined to agree about the button. It's too small and too close the the lens. Fujifilm make beautiful cameras, but ergonomics isn't their strongest point.

"It's unfortunate that a bit of very minor cosmetic damage is done to the X-Pro3 body during the process of attaching and detaching these Viltrox lenses, thereby reducing the resale value by a few dollars."

It's unfortunate that the reduced resale value is the first thing that comes up into mind...